On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:01 AM, James A Miller wrote:
>>protege-owl-bounces at mailman.stanford.edu wrote on 04/04/2007
> 09:37:17 AM:
>> >
> > > I do think that closed-world reasoning tends to be more of an
> issue
> > > when
> > > dealing with instances than with concept subsumption, since I
> don't
> > > think
> > > there are any class subsumption inferences that require knowing
> > > that the
> > > current set of fillers is the complete set. That seems to me
> to be
> > > more
> > > of an instance-level concern.
> >
> > At first blush this sounds right. So if you are reasoning about
> > instances it is more likely that you actually want to have a closed
> > world assumption (as is desired with many queries).
> >
> > -Timothy
>> I'm trying to understand the implications of this.
> How does one move from open-world to closed-world?
> I thought that I had understood that OWL is open-world by definition.
OWL is open-world by definition, so there isn't any way (yet)
of moving to closed world assumptions. In one of the other
replies (by Timothy Redmond) there is mention of some ideas
about future extensions that may allow for such closed-world
reasoning.